March 17, 200620 yr Published: 03/17/2006 12:00 AM (UAE) UK breaks with the US over Iran By Patrick Seale, Special to Gulf News Britain has told the United States that it will not take part in any armed action against Iran's nuclear sites, according to diplomatic sources in London. Alreading facing huge public criticism for his participation in the Iraq war, Prime Minister Tony Blair is seeking to distance himself from America's belligerent rhetoric towards Iran. Blair knows he would probably not survive the political storm if Britain joined in an attack on Iran. The concern in Whitehall, however, is that the Bush administration, egged on by Israel and its powerful friends in the United States, risks developing an unstoppable momentum towards war a war in which Britain clearly wants no part. There is a real fear that if Iran refuses to yield to pressure either by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) or by the UN Security Council to which Iran was formally referred on March 8 then the US would be left with no other option than to strike. The US may indeed have boxed itself into a corner by its threats, which Iran has scornfully rejected. The view in Whitehall is that if America attacks Iran, it will have to do so alone or with Israel. In private discussions, British officials have made clear that any sort of military campaign against Iran would be "madness". Close alliance Despite its close alliance with the US, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has departed publicly from aggressive statements by senior US officials. He has ruled out military action by Britain against Iran as "inconceivable". Last week, Britain announced it was pulling 800 men out of Iraq one tenth of its force there. This is seen as a signal that Britain is seeking to limit its involvement in America's wars, rather than take on additional commitments. Carefully monitoring opinion in Washington, British officials have noted with alarm that the advocates of confrontation with Iran, both inside and outside the administration, have triumphed over the few brave souls who dared argue in favour of dialogue and engagement. Analysts in London are now convinced that Washington's real aim is "regime change" in Tehran, an ambition which goes far beyond merely delaying or halting Iran's nuclear programme. The Washington Post reported this week that Iran had moved to the top of America's national security agenda. Quite apart from the large teams devoted to the Iran problem in the Pentagon and the intelligence agencies, 10 people are now working full time on the Iran desk at the State Department, and an American outpost of Tehran-watchers has been established in the Gulf. Earlier this month US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice declared: "We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran whose policies are directed at developing a Middle East that would be 180 degrees different from the Middle East that we would like to see develop." In a bid to undermine the mullahs, she is planning to spend $85 million expanding American radio and TV broadcasts to Iran and promote internal opposition. In a widely reported speech on March 7 to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the main pro-Israeli lobby, Vice-President Dick Cheney declared: "The United States is keeping all options on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the [iranian] regime ? We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon." On the same day, General Moshe Ya'alon, a former Israeli chief of staff, told a Washington audience that Israel could launch an attack on Iran in several different ways, not just from the air. This was seen as a reference to Israel's Dolphin class submarines, armed with American Harpoon nuclear missiles, which are thought to be targeted at Iran. As with the invasion of Iraq, the campaign against Iran seems to be driven by neocons and other pro-Israeli activists. Richard Perle one of the most eager advocates of the Iraq war has been beating the drums of war against Iran, as has the pro-Israeli Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Even Ze'ev Schiff, a usually sober Israeli defence analyst, wrote last week in Haaretz that intelligence services in the West were convinced that Iran was covertly developing nuclear weapons. "There is a secondary, smaller covert channel that is making steady progress towards creating a nuclear weapon," he claimed. The Israeli daily Haaretz reported on March 10 that "in recent months, IDF officers have visited Washington to offer their support for a military strike should the diplomatic channels fail to bring Iran to heel". Largely to do with Israel American war fever against Iran seem largely to do with Israel. It includes Iran's support for anti-Israeli militant groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas, as well as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's remarks about "wiping Israel off the map", which most independent observers dismiss as an angry response to Israel's brutal oppression of the Palestinians and not in any sense a realistic threat. President George W. Bush and his Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld have accused Iran of smuggling sophisticated road-side bombs and military personnel into Iraq, but General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, admitted this week that the US had no proof of such activity. In claiming that Iran is developing nuclear weapons the US seems in danger of repeating the mistake it made in Iraq. The evidence against Iran is as flimsy and as unproven as was the charge that Iraq's WMD posed an "imminent threat" to America and the world. There is no sign, however, that Washington is ready to heed the advice of IAEA chief Mohammad Al Baradei, who urged the US to end the "war of words" with Tehran and "engage in a dialogue". Russia, too, is anxious to avert the danger of war not least to protect its substantial interests in Iran. Russia is supplying Iran with an advanced air defence system and has almost finished building Iran's first nuclear power station at Bushehr on the Arabian Gulf at a reported cost of $800 million. Moscow is keen to win more nuclear power contracts in Iran where Energy Minister Parviz Fattah this week announced plans to start building a second nuclear power station within six months. Russia's Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, described Iran's referral to the Security Council as "too hasty". "This move is detrimental," he said on Russian state TV. "Not one real problem can be decided with such a move ? We don't want to be the ones to remind [everyone] who was right and who was not in Iraq, although the answer is obvious." A Russian compromise proposal to produce nuclear fuel for Iranian power stations in Russia, while allowing Iran to enrich a small amount of uranium on its own soil, was shot down by the US. "Enrichment and reprocessing on Iranian soil is not acceptable," US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice said. In confronting Iran, the US may not have fully weighed the possible consequences: the extreme danger to US forces in Iraq; soaring oil prices; and encouragement for the world-wide jihadi movement which is bound to result in terror attacks against US and Israeli interests. It looks as if the US has no coherent policy towards Iran only bluster. Iran has an "inalienable right" under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to acquire atomic knowledge for peaceful purposes. It has the ability to hit back hard against any aggressor. And, even were it to acquire nuclear weapons a remote possibility several years in the future it could surely be contained and deterred by the immensely greater nuclear arsenals of the US and Israel. The inescapable conclusion would seem to be that the US should start direct talks with Iran as soon as possible. It may be the only way to defuse the threat of war, to provide the US with an exit strategy from Iraq and to build bridges to an inflamed Muslim public opinion. Gulf News
March 17, 200620 yr I refused to read that article after Israeli's brutal oppresion of Palestinian people. Last time I checked, Israeli's while incredibly tough with their policy, have not been brutal dictators. Thats an incredibly false statement. Other than that the article is alright.
March 17, 200620 yr Israel can go in alone. The one real threat is that Iran would then fire scud missiles at Israel, maybe Nuclear. That would be suicide. Israel has nuclear weapons and would not be afriad to aniliate a country. Britians security is at risk more then ours with this situation in Iran. It is heavily rumored Iran has missiles that could reach Europe and England. The thing is that this was is getting political just like Viatnam, which it shouldn't. You don;t argue and fight a war polictically, the bravest men on earth are fighting for your freedom and the freedom of other people and you are saying that the war was wrong! The Muslims claim Israel as their own land, so if they nuked it wouldn't they be nuking their own land?!? That's why I hate Cindy Sheehan; last night on MSNBC she said that Bush was a terrorist because thousands on Iraqi's have died, and that FDR was a terrorist because civilians died in WWII and that WWI and the American Revolution were wrong because it killed civilians. She said that war was bad and should never happen. She said that America shouldn't have an army and that the people die in vain. WHAT A LOAD OF BULL S*IT!!!!!!!!! If it wasn't for those soldiers giving the ultimate sacrafice for this country then we wouldn't be here today, there wouldn't be an America, we wouldn't have our freedoms. Someone needs to beat the crap out of her. And on the story of Iran smuggling IED's into Iran. ABC News correspondent Brian Ross reported this about 2 weeks ago, BEFORE President Bush said it, FOX News also reported it last week.
March 17, 200620 yr If we go into Iran the military is going to be forced to do a draft. Because there is no way in hell that we will be able to have enough men to control the situations in Iraq, South Korea, Afghanistan and then fight a full war against Iran. This is a situation that needs to be talked through using the UK as a reference country
March 17, 200620 yr Could you tell me what show Sheehan said these things on? I'm pretty sure it was Scarborough Country with Joe Scarborough on MSNBC. It was on at 9pm or 10pm last night. _________ On the subject of a draft we wouldn't need one. Our army is close to 2 million and close to the size of the Iranian army. Strategists think there would be mass surrender like there was in both Iraq wars. Not to mention that are army is the most technologically advanced and could bomb all the military establishments and kill 1/2 the military that way. The problem would then be establishing security quick and policing the country.
March 17, 200620 yr Could you tell me what show Sheehan said these things on? I'm pretty sure it was Scarborough Country with Joe Scarborough on MSNBC. It was on at 9pm or 10pm last night. _________ On the subject of a draft we wouldn't need one. Our army is close to 2 million and close to the size of the Iranian army. Strategists think there would be mass surrender like there was in both Iraq wars. Not to mention that are army is the most technologically advanced and could bomb all the military establishments and kill 1/2 the military that way. The problem would then be establishing security quick and policing the country. Oh..you mean Iraq part 2? Yeah..thats EXACTLY what this country needs right now. :banghead
March 17, 200620 yr Could you tell me what show Sheehan said these things on? I'm pretty sure it was Scarborough Country with Joe Scarborough on MSNBC. It was on at 9pm or 10pm last night. _________ On the subject of a draft we wouldn't need one. Our army is close to 2 million and close to the size of the Iranian army. Strategists think there would be mass surrender like there was in both Iraq wars. Not to mention that are army is the most technologically advanced and could bomb all the military establishments and kill 1/2 the military that way. The problem would then be establishing security quick and policing the country. Oh..you mean Iraq part 2? Yeah..thats EXACTLY what this country needs right now. :banghead I think a war with Iran would be horrible but it's entirely possible, and the army is capable of doing it.
March 18, 200620 yr Glad to see Blair may finally have grown a pair and said no to Bush. If only he would have done this a few years ago.....
March 18, 200620 yr Could you tell me what show Sheehan said these things on? I'm pretty sure it was Scarborough Country with Joe Scarborough on MSNBC. It was on at 9pm or 10pm last night. _________ On the subject of a draft we wouldn't need one. Our army is close to 2 million and close to the size of the Iranian army. Strategists think there would be mass surrender like there was in both Iraq wars. Not to mention that are army is the most technologically advanced and could bomb all the military establishments and kill 1/2 the military that way. The problem would then be establishing security quick and policing the country. Oh..you mean Iraq part 2? Yeah..thats EXACTLY what this country needs right now. :banghead I think a war with Iran would be horrible but it's entirely possible, and the army is capable of doing it. It would be very possible to get it done but with enlistment numbers down. I dont think it would be very smart. I think you would see our technological abilities dwindle very quickly. Just a logistics nightmare! It is not something I want to think about right now. Also, it would not be a war with just Iran, It would basically be a war against all Islamic countries because Iran has alot of islamic allies
March 18, 200620 yr Could you tell me what show Sheehan said these things on? I'm pretty sure it was Scarborough Country with Joe Scarborough on MSNBC. It was on at 9pm or 10pm last night. _________ On the subject of a draft we wouldn't need one. Our army is close to 2 million and close to the size of the Iranian army. Strategists think there would be mass surrender like there was in both Iraq wars. Not to mention that are army is the most technologically advanced and could bomb all the military establishments and kill 1/2 the military that way. The problem would then be establishing security quick and policing the country. Oh..you mean Iraq part 2? Yeah..thats EXACTLY what this country needs right now. :banghead I think a war with Iran would be horrible but it's entirely possible, and the army is capable of doing it. It would be very possible to get it done but with enlistment numbers down. I dont think it would be very smart. I think you would see our technological abilities dwindle very quickly. Just a logistics nightmare! It is not something I want to think about right now. Also, it would not be a war with just Iran, It would basically be a war against all Islamic countries because Iran has alot of islamic allies Not really. Thats the misconception. Iran doesn't have very many Islamic Allies. Its a Shi'ite Country in a world where Sunni Muslims dominate the political landscape. Iraq is one of the few Middle Eastern nations with a predominate Shi'ite Majority but due to the 1980-88 war being fresh in everyone's mind still, will most likely never ally with Iran. Now Syria has opened talks, but I don't ever see Syria ever coming to the defense of Iran.
March 18, 200620 yr If we go into Iran the military is going to be forced to do a draft. Because there is no way in hell that we will be able to have enough men to control the situations in Iraq, South Korea, Afghanistan and then fight a full war against Iran. This is a situation that needs to be talked through using the UK as a reference country Despite everyone claiming the military is overstretched, less than 10% of the entire military is in Afghanistan and Iraq.
March 19, 200620 yr I will seriously be pissed if we go to war against Iran now. I would have supported it if we had attacked them first instead of Iraq, mostly because Iran has been linked to many terrorist attacks against U.S. soldiers and interests in the Middle East since the early 1980's. We never did anything about that, however.
March 20, 200620 yr the US just needs to mind its own P's and Q's for a while...and take our troops out of japan, germany and various other countries that dont need our military presense there...so we can stop outspending the next 18 countries combined in our defense budget...the less of a threat we are to other countries, the less of a threat other countries are to us
March 20, 200620 yr the US just needs to mind its own P's and Q's for a while...and take our troops out of japan, germany and various other countries that dont need our military presense there...so we can stop outspending the next 18 countries combined in our defense budget...the less of a threat we are to other countries, the less of a threat other countries are to us That's a defeatist attitude if I ever saw one. We should pull out troops out of Japan? That is absolutely ridiculous. Do you realize how close Japan is to North Korea? So I suppose by your logic, if we destroy all of our nukes, so will Iran and North Korea? I suppose that if we pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, there will never be another 9/11? Please. Why should we pull our troops out of Japan, Germany, and various other countries? Guess who the first ones bringing aid to the Tsunami victims were right after it happened in south east Asia? American troops stationed overseas. The massive earthquake/mudslide in Africa a few weeks ago, guess who was there on the scene pulling people out of the rubble and digging for survivors? American troops stationed overseas.
March 20, 200620 yr Pulling troops out of europe may be a good idea economically but not practically. By allowing the EU to save on military spending (since we supply a lot for their defense) they are able help the global economy while we also benefit from that relaitonship with them. As for Iran. This may be the ticket we need to finally pull out of Iraq. Using the threat of a war in Iran can give us sufficient reason tou pull out a large number of our forces in Iraq and still not have to actually launch a full scale war on Iran where air strikes will do.
March 20, 200620 yr Say you pull troops out of Iraq so that you can attack Iran. This would be the equivalent of rolling out the red carpet for Iran to conquer Iraq with it's military. Any attack against Iran by us, especially if we don't have any troops in Iraq, will give the crazies in Iran the perfect excuse to gain some new land. Right now Iraq has no military. It wouldn't stand a chance against the Iranian army, which has more military power than any other country in the region, excluding Israel.
March 21, 200620 yr all im saying is that a certain intelligent president of ours, said the US should stay out of the affairs of europe...we dont need to police the rest of the world, who helps us when we have problems...right...no one, why should we spend our hard earned money on other countries? do we have a global market? yes...of course...but do we really need troops all over the world to have a worldy presence? hell no...are their german, iraqi, korean, spanish, etc troops in our country, you know why? because its our country, we dont need them and they dont need us or want us there, trust me
March 21, 200620 yr all im saying is that a certain intelligent president of ours, said the US should stay out of the affairs of europe...we dont need to police the rest of the world, who helps us when we have problems...right...no one, why should we spend our hard earned money on other countries? do we have a global market? yes...of course...but do we really need troops all over the world to have a worldy presence? hell no...are their german, iraqi, korean, spanish, etc troops in our country, you know why? because its our country, we dont need them and they dont need us or want us there, trust me If it wasn't for our troops in these countries then most of these countires would not exist or exist as they are today. Without our troops in South Korea, what would be stopping North Korea for invading. Our military is partially required to be in Japan and Germany because of the surrendur decree of WWII. The Iraqi army is about 550,000 soldiers but they are incapable of fighting by themselves in large numbers. Most of these countries want us there or they are neutral, no countries will ever say get out! Look at Puerto Rico; years ago we had a huge bombing range and base on the island. The Puerto Ricans voted to force us to exit, right after we pulled out their economy went in the crapper because the thousands of U.S. Troops contributed to the economy, and they are a U.S. Territory so why did they want us out? Our troops being in an area can stabilize a region and prevent war because lets say for example Korea. Our troops right now in South Korea are preventing an invasion by the North. The North does not want to fight the thousand's of U.S. troops in South Korea, because they now in just hours of invasion there country would demolished by both air strikes by the United States bases in Japan and S. Korea, and we could have ten's of thousands of troops there within 24 hours. Countries do not want to get into a war with the U.S. because they now of our military power and repsect it. We could topple any country in the world, including China when there in draft with a billion troops. A war with Iran would be horrible but it will happen. Its not a question of If but when. The war in Iran would be stronger, broader, and quicker then Iraq in 2003. The war would open-up with a Shock and Awe that you have never seen. The war would be stronger because the U.S. has learned from mistakes, they now they need more troops, more supplies, and quicker. My estimate would be about 350,000 to 450,000 U.S. Troops would head- up a ground invasion on Iran after the opening stages of a Shock and Awe campaign agaist the nuclear sites and Tehran. My beleif is that other countries would get involved, possible contributing about 25,000 to 50,000 more troops. Israel would most likely be involved. Another thing you have to understand about the war is the price. The U.K. can not afford to fight a war in Iran or Iraq. Britian does not have the economy to pay for a war of either size. There armed forces are also about 1/10th the size of ours. The United States can afford to fight the war. We spend around $437 billion a year on defense and the Armed Forces, that is more then every other country in the world combined. We can afford war, the United Kingdom can't, that is a factor you have to look at also. This call might not be from Tony Blair either. The President of the United States of America is the head of state of the United States; under the U.S. Constitution, the President is also the chief executive of the federal government and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. In the United Kingdom the Prime Minister is not the Commander-In-Cheif of the Armed Forces, the Queen is. If she says no, then it's a no go. The call could have come down from the top, you now how governments cover things up.
March 21, 200620 yr I can't believe that ranking puts Britain second in the world, and China fourth. Britain has a relatively small army with quite limited resources, China is a nation on an economic boom the likes of which the world has never seen, they are as a nation technologically advanced and are the worlds manufacturing centre. Their cash resources are enourmous, and they are an ally of Iran, the US would have to be stupid to even think about going into Iran, I hope for the world's sake 'Dubya gives this a lot of thought.
March 21, 200620 yr And yet the same people who say we shouldn't do anything about Iran will be the first to condemn the President if Iran gets and uses a nuke. If you think military action is out of the question, then what is your answer? How do you deal with a regime that has openly declared their intent to wipe Israel off the map if they get the chance. It is the height of folly for the UK to categorically rule out the threat of force a priori. Even if they have no intention of it, they're better off keeping their mouths shut and playing it close to the vest. Sometimes just the possibility of retaliation is enough to deter. The UK has given that advantage up with nothing to show for it.
March 22, 200620 yr The UK is no superpower, and after Iraq, there would have to be an imminent threat to our nation's security to warrant any action in Iran. The UK has not said it will not get involved were Iran to begin something, however it has I believe made it clear that it will not take part in Iraq part II. The threat of retaliation is still there, just the fact that we won't strike first this time a la Iraq.
March 22, 200620 yr For those of you who don't beleive that the UK should be #2, this is from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom The United Kingdom fields one of the most powerful and comprehensive military forces in the World. Its global power projection capabilities are second only to those of the United States Armed Forces.
March 22, 200620 yr For those of you who don't beleive that the UK should be #2, this is from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom The United Kingdom fields one of the most powerful and comprehensive military forces in the World. Its global power projection capabilities are second only to those of the United States Armed Forces. genius. Cambridge Marlin is from the UK. I would say he would know more about the British forces than you get from Wikipedia. And this isnt exactly good news for the United States. Good thing we are fighting a war on terrorism in Iraq. Oh ya. oops.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.